Are AI ETFs expensive right now?

Written by the ETF Copilot research team

Updated October 28, 2026

How AIQ's valuation compares with its own past

All five funds, and where each sits in its own range

Value, quality and risk scores are ETF Copilot's own 0–10 measures computed across every fund we cover. Higher is better on all three, so a low value score means expensive. Where a column is highlighted, amber marks the least favourable reading of the group and green the most favourable.

The five funds are not interchangeable

"AI" is a description of a business, not a sector classification, so each provider draws the line somewhere different: some funds hold the large platform companies that sell the compute, others hold the industrial robotics and automation names, and a few hold both plus the software layer above them. Two funds with the same three letters in their name can share very little.

The most expensive of the five is BOTZ at 32.8 times earnings; the weakest on the quality of what it holds is ROBT, scoring 1.2 out of 10. They are not the same fund, which is the point: price and company quality are two separate questions for AI ETFs, and a fund can be at the wrong end of either one on its own.

At the other end, ARTY is the only fund of the five that is cheaper than the group's midpoint on our value score, at 9.5 out of 10, without also sitting below it on company quality — 8.2 out of 10.

Trailing earnings are the harshest lens available

What would have to be true for today's reading to hold

Stated as conditions, because a condition is checkable and because no ETF Copilot figure says what to do about any fund:

• The earnings have to arrive. AIQ's multiple falls from 24.1 to 18.2 only if the forecast earnings are delivered in full. Delivered halfway, it is around 21.2 times.
• The way each fund is built has to keep mattering. THNQ holds 56 companies and scores 1.3 out of 10 on company quality; ROBT spreads across 110 and scores 1.2. Those are two different bets wearing one label.
• The ride has to be tolerable. Our risk score runs 0 to 10, where 10 is the steadiest fund in the universe we cover. Across this group it runs from 0.7 for ARTY to 1.4 for AIQ, against 6.9 for VOO. The same funds produced both the multiples and those scores.

How this compares with the wider market

AI ETFs are not the only funds trading away from their own past. QQQ is more expensive than 43% of its own record, at 27.9 times against a median of 30.2, and VOO is more expensive than 63% of its own record, at 24.7 times against a median of 22.6. The same measurement, applied to the other themes people ask about: semiconductor ETFs sit above 60% to 96% of their own records; defense ETFs sit above 21% to 80% of their own records; data center and AI power ETFs sit below their own long-run multiples.

For which funds actually hold this exposure, rather than what they cost, see the look-through hub, which lists every fund with meaningful exposure to the theme and how much of each fund it is.

Is AIQ expensive right now?

Against its own record, no on trailing earnings: AIQ trades at 24.1 times against a median of 27.3, cheaper than 75% of its own last 8 years, and it has been above that median for 71% of the last 2 years. Against the earnings expected next year the same fund is at 18.2 times, so both lenses point the same way and this comparison of AI ETFs shows both.

Which AI ETF is cheapest against its own history?

ARTY, cheaper than 100% of its own last 2 years — the lowest of the five AI ETFs compared, relative to its own past. That is a different question from which fund is cheapest outright: on price alone the lowest multiple of the group is AIQ at 24.1 times. A fund can carry the lowest multiple in its group and still be expensive for itself.

Why do two AI ETFs show different P/E ratios?

Because two AI ETFs hold different companies in different proportions. A fund's price-to-earnings ratio is the weighted average of the ratios of what it holds, so a fund capped at the largest and most profitable names produces a different figure from one that equal-weights a much wider list. Providers also differ on trailing versus forward earnings, on how loss-making companies are handled, and on the date of the holdings file. Every ETF Copilot figure is computed the same way for every fund, from each fund's own published holdings.

Does a high P/E mean these funds will fall?

No. The ratio measures price against earnings already reported. It carries no information about what happens next, and reading a forecast into a measurement is the most common mistake made with it. What it does tell you is where a fund sits relative to what buyers have been willing to pay for the same fund in the past, which is a fact about the past and the present only.

Cite this
ETF Copilot, “AI ETFs measured against their own price-to-earnings history”, figures as of October 28, 2026. https://etf-copilot.com/learn/are-ai-etfs-expensive

Method. The trailing price-to-earnings ratio is computed by ETF Copilot from each fund's published holdings — every holding's ratio, weighted by its share of the fund — not quoted from a data provider. The monthly history uses the holdings held at each date, so the line is comparable with itself. “More expensive than” is the share of the fund's own history that sat below today's reading. Value, quality and risk are our own scores, where higher is better. Recalculated daily.

See AIQ in full, and any of the funds we cover →

Sources: Global X AIQ fund page, Global X BOTZ fund page, Investor.gov on index funds

Nothing on this page is investment advice, a recommendation, or a forecast of returns.